At the sidelines of the Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC) 2025 in Kuala Lumpur, WikkiTimes’ Haruna Mohammed Salisu and Hafsah Ibrahim sat down with Carlos Gaio, the CEO of Media Defence and a seasoned human rights lawyer with more than a decade of international litigation experience.
Gaio, who joined Media Defence in 2020 and became its CEO in 2023, previously spent ten years as a senior lawyer at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and has worked with human rights organisations in Brazil and the UK. With an MA in International Relations from the University of Essex and an LLB from the Federal University of Paraná — and as a member of the Brazilian Bar — he brings deep expertise on press freedom, human rights law, and global advocacy.
In this conversation, Gaio discusses the escalating legal threats journalists now face worldwide — from SLAPPs to politically motivated lawsuits — and explains why authoritarian actors are increasingly weaponising the courts to silence independent reporting. He warns that while the legal space is tightening, “journalism has never been more important than ever,” urging newsrooms, civic actors, and the judiciary to unite in defending press freedom before the damage becomes irreversible.
Q: Carlos Gaio, thank you for making time to speak with us, and for the continuous support Media Defence has extended to WikkiTimes, especially during moments when legal pressures threatened our work. Media Defence has consistently stood with journalists across Africa and beyond—those facing lawsuits, intimidation, or pressure from authoritarian actors. Based on your experience, what emerging patterns do you see in the threats confronting journalists today, particularly newsrooms engaged in accountability and investigative reporting?
An: I think there are probably two main reasons. The first one is that more and more you see independent journalism with outlets like WikkiTimes and smaller outlets doing amazing investigative journalism and uncovering corruption, wrongdoing, and bringing this information to the public, when more traditional media outlets probably didn’t have the capacity of the space to investigate so many issues, so many problems. So there is an increase in the output, I believe, of investigative reporting, public interest reporting. The second aspect is that there has been a massive increase in legal threats against journalists. I think nefarious actors, you know, authoritarian regimes, governments, agents of the state, let’s say, and also business people, companies.
They sometimes use the threat of violence to stop journalists. That became more expensive, more difficult for them. So they seem to be resorting to less problematic tools. And I think the legal space provided them with that opportunity. They are very creative, and they’re using several types of lawsuits to try and censor and stop journalists from doing their public interest reporting. And that’s very problematic because for a journalist, especially an independent outlet or a freelance journalist, they don’t have the backing of an established editor and the muscle to face a lawsuit and the cost of a lawsuit. So that’s why organizations such as Media Defence come in very importantly, to be able to support them to face those lawsuits and continue reporting. That’s the most important thing for us, the journalists continue reporting.
Q: You’re absolutely right, and the situation is deeply troubling. Recent experiences have shown a rise in SLAPPs—where newsrooms are dragged to court not because the plaintiffs expect to win, but because they want to exhaust and intimidate journalists, especially smaller outlets with limited resources. Given Media Defence’s extensive interventions across Africa, what practical steps can newsrooms and other stakeholders take to push back effectively, protect their institutions, and ensure journalists can continue to work in a safe and enabling environment?
An: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Again, it’s probably two ways of doing that, and it’s more or less how media defense operates. The first one, we need to continue providing emergency defence, emergency support. So they need to be able to defend these lawsuits. As you say, oftentimes they are not meritorious, they’re frivolous. They just want to stop you, cause you trouble, make you anxious and stressed. So the time you would be devoting to reporting, you’re now thinking about your case. The money that you will invest in reporting, you have to pay lawyers and legal fees, and so on. So they want to distract you.
And sometimes, depending on the country, you can’t really trust the judiciary to do the right thing and throw out those cases easily. So, you have to go to the end, and that’s expensive. So, you need to continue defending those cases. But you also need to think about how you can work strategically and set precedents in the case law that will help change the atmosphere for journalism. So we need strong precedents, strong decisions from courts in West Africa and East Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa in general that see the obligations of the state to provide a conducive environment for journalists to operate. So you need the judiciary to set good examples, not only on individual cases, but also on strategic cases that change laws and practices around Africa. And this is where I think lawyers need to work together with journalists to achieve these objectives.
Q: Absolutely, Mr. Carlos. Building on what you’ve just explained, I’ve been studying shield laws in the US, as you know, that offer journalists some protection. From your experience working in this space, do you think journalism institutions, media organisations, and civic actors can realistically come together to push for regulatory reforms that strengthen freedom of expression and access to information? In other words, is it possible to collectively advocate for policy changes—such as shield laws or anti-SLAPP legislation—that would offer journalists stronger legal protection?
An: Absolutely, yes, 100%, it’s inevitable, and you need to do it. So you need the judiciary, you need these cases, but you also need to work with advocacy, in the legislative, in the with the executive, you need to push for these forms to be passed for laws like these and anti-SLAPP laws, if possible, to be approved in each Congress and each legislative body, so that you have, so the judges then have the tools, the laws in place to be able to throw out these frivolous lawsuits to protect journalism and journalists from these threats.
So definitely academia, journalist associations, journalist union rights, syndicates, should be part of this discussion and try to force, to push governments to act decisively to protect journalism. It’s so important, and our democracy depends on journalism, and with the rise of far-right movements and authoritarian regimes, not only in Africa, in Latin America, in Europe, in North America as well, you see this growth of threats to the civic space. So journalism has never been more important than ever.
Q: Let me ask you this, Mr. Carlos. I have a particular concern for small newsrooms—partly because I run one myself in northern Nigeria, where legacy media and national outlets rarely focus on local issues. By nature, small newsrooms operate on very limited budgets, with few staff who may not always have the full capacity or resources they need. So when a lawsuit hits, they are suddenly overwhelmed—juggling legal battles, financial strain, and the pressure to keep reporting. From your experience, what practical strategies can smaller news organisations adopt to protect themselves in such situations, especially in Africa? Are there successful examples from other regions that small platforms here could learn from to strengthen their resilience against legal threats?
An: A few examples I’ve seen around the world of a similar to what you’re describing led to a few changes in the outlets. So the first one was probably to use lawyers to review their publications before they’re published. So pre-publication review is very important to at least formally have the reports, you know, what the title protects you from lawsuits. That won’t stop lawsuits. Lawsuits, as I said, frivolous lawsuits, meritless lawsuits, they will come. But if you’re confident that your report has been checked and has been vetted by a lawyer, I mean, the chances of success are higher. The second aspect is to be prepared.
So you need to know a lawyer, know who to go to. Don’t wait. I mean, I’ve seen examples of journalists who ignored the court’s notice and didn’t defend themselves. And reverting those judgments is very difficult after the fact. So, you need to take it very seriously and engage with a lawyer or law firm to defend you. So be prepared for that. And the second aspect is I’ve seen that some independent outlets have used these threats as a way to raise their profile, and both in terms of fundraising, explaining that they are being threatened by powerful individuals and that could represent the death of their outlets.
So, engaging the public, and that has been quite positive because in many countries, the public reacted positively to that call, not in terms of donations, but also in terms of readership, in terms of increasing the readership or the access of the media outlets. So it could be an opportunity, not because of good reasons, it’s a bad reason that you’re being sued, but it could represent an opportunity to reach more readers, especially young people who want to participate in the public space and don’t see a way of doing it through political parties or traditional movements.
Q: Let me ask you this, because it’s something that worries me deeply—and I’m sure it concerns you as well. We’re seeing a steady decline in funding for independent journalism and for organisations that support democratic governance globally. For instance, the gutting of USAID in the United States and the broader pullback by major foundations have affected many media outlets and civil society groups. As Media Defence, are you concerned about this sustained drop in funding? And do you foresee a situation where these cuts might force you to scale back the level of support you provide to journalists and independent newsrooms?
An: I think everyone was affected. And, in particular, in the Global South, small outlets didn’t receive funding necessarily from USAID, but in many places, they were re-granted, so they received grants from intermediaries who received funding from USAID, for instance, and that all dried up. And the threats to foundations, as you said, from the United States also meant that they are now more careful or they are stricter with the funding that they’re providing. So, this is a big problem, especially, I think, next year we’ll see a few groups, and I talk about media outlets, but also small non-governmental organizations. They may have to shut down or merge because of a lack of funding.
So this is very concerning. We see that. So, media defense, we were affected as well. Part of our budget was reduced. Luckily, we were able to fundraise and find alternatives, so we’re very happy with that. But our partners with whom we work in several countries are struggling, so we see their sustainability under threat because of these cuts, especially since grants are coming from the United States that have been reduced. So, governments need to step up, and I think foundations also need to step up and collaborate among them to fund organizations that have potential and that have a sustainable path to continue both reporting and also supporting journalism. We’re not the only ones; there are other organizations doing this, especially at the local level, and it’s important that they are alive so that they can provide support when you need it.
Q: One challenge many newsrooms face when seeking legal support from organisations like yours is that the funding often covers lawyers’ fees but not always the costs journalists or editors incur when attending court hearings. How do we address this gap? And how is Media Defence approaching this issue to ensure that newsrooms are fully supported throughout the legal process?
An: Yeah, so the funding that we provide with regards to the costs, legal fees, and the costs of the case, it would include transportation, for instance, for the victims or the journalists who are responding to a lawsuit to participate and their lawyers, right, to be able to attend the hearing. So that would be foreseen in the grant. The problem, as you say, is that funds are limited, so sometimes it’s not possible to cover the whole cost of the lawsuit, especially in expensive jurisdictions. So it depends on the country, and it depends on the complexity of the case as well. Some cases are more simple to deal with. Some cases are extremely complex, involving national security involving crimes that are a lot more difficult to argue. So they require specialist knowledge, specialist lawyers. So all of that needs to be taken into consideration. And we try and do that on a case-by-case basis. And we try, honestly, to be as generous as possible because we understand the risks that journalists are facing, the work that is involved by a lawyer. But yeah, it’s a case-by-case basis, depending on the country as well, and we try and do, we try and spend all the money we have for these grants every year. We don’t want to keep the money for next year. We really try and make the best possible use of this money and help as many people as possible all around the world.
You’ve known WikkiTimes for some time now, and we appreciate the consistent support Media Defence has provided. From your perspective, what do you think about our work and the role we play? And what message would you like to share with our journalists and our audience?
An: Well, I think the work that we do is amazing. It’s extremely important in northern Nigeria. It’s a country that is very similar to my country, Brazil, and Nigeria. I mean, we are a country with a lot of inequality, a lot of very rich folks, and a lot of poverty, and a lot of challenges in development. So, I understand more or less the dynamics, probably in society. Obviously, there are differences, and I completely understand that. But, you know, the fact that you are still going, the fact that you are focusing on a specific region of Nigeria, but you are reporting about problems that really are important to society where you live.
I think this is a testament that you need to continue and you need to expose wrongdoing, you need to challenge those in power and that’s the beauty of journalism, of investigative journalism is that small outlets like you can produce very important reporting and with a lot of impact in society, not only in northern Nigeria, but in the whole of Nigeria and sometimes even West Africa. Keep going. That’s our message, and we’re happy that you’re able to continue.
